No error: Supreme Court junks petitions seeking review of ‘quota within quota’ verdict

The Supreme Court has dismissed petitions seeking review of its judgment that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not homogenous groups and the State can sub-classify them to ensure greater reservations for some SC/ST groups over others in public employment and admission to government-run educational institutions.

“Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, has been established. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed,” a seven-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud said, dismissing petitions seeking review of its August 1 verdict.

Other judges on the Bench were Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma.

While holding that the State was empowered to sub-classify SC/ST groups, the top court had by a 6:1 majority, said such sub-classification “can’t be based on the whims of governments”.

“The objective of any form of affirmative action, including sub-classification, is to provide substantive equality of opportunity for the backward classes. The State can sub-classify, inter alia, based on inadequate representation of certain castes. However, the State must establish that the inadequacy of representation of a caste/group is because of its backwardness,” the Bench had said.

The majority had overruled the top court’s five-judge Bench verdict in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) which had ruled that SC/ST communities which suffered ostracisation, discrimination and humiliation for centuries formed homogeneous groups, incapable of being sub-categorised.

However, Justice Trivedi had agreed with the 2004 verdict in EV Chinnaiah case that only Parliament, and not state legislatures, was empowered to exclude castes deemed to be SC from the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution. She held that states had no legislative competence to do it.

Review petitioner advocate Jaishri Patil had pointed out that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of sub-classification of backward classes in the Indra Sawhney case (Mandal Case-1992) did not apply to SCs and STs; and the term “backward class” as used in Article 16(4) of the Constitution was intended to be distinct from SCs, which were separately defined under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. However, the top court didn’t agree with him.